Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Holy Cross is 45 mile from Boston and Stanford is 37 miles from San Francisco. Apple is based 46 miles from San Francisco. It is really weird how much people try to tie things relatively far from San Francisco as San Francisco.
Compared to say New Yorkers or Bostonians that are almost gatekeepers who have a very restrictive view of what Metro New York or Greater Boston is.
Not to split hairs, but the southern border of SF is barely over 30 miles to Stanford campus. But again no one is actually claiming Stanford or even Berkeley are in SF proper. But they undoubtedly are part of San Francisco’s metro area. And that’s often the terms people use when they compare areas on City Data. There are 30 miles of dense continuous development between SF and Stanford - it would be silly to somehow argue they aren’t in the same metro. And with Berkeley that’s an even more obvious point.
People tend to give San Francisco more credit for things way out from the city than basically any other city in the country
Gotdamn, if this isn't the truth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman
That would be like SF trying to claim UC Davis.
That has actually happened on here, yes, SF boosters claiming UCD as their own...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman
Not to split hairs, but the southern border of SF is barely over 30 miles to Stanford campus. But again no one is actually claiming Stanford or even Berkeley are in SF proper. But they undoubtedly are part of San Francisco’s metro area. And that’s often the terms people use when they compare areas on City Data. There are 30 miles of dense continuous development between SF and Stanford - it would be silly to somehow argue they aren’t in the same metro. And with Berkeley that’s an even more obvious point.
You are unnecessarily splitting hairs. The point is that San Francisco fits the OP question maybe more than any other city in the country....
I do think posters have a warped perception of the region due to geography, which is why this site allows a disproportionate SF bias. Both Oakland and San Jose have their own orbits, and yet that is rarely acknowledged here, because the lack of knowledge of the culturisms of The Bay assumes that San Francisco is the sole genesis, benefactor, and beneficiary of all things Bay Area...
I also disagree with your usage of the phrase "ghetto areas" to describe Vallejo and Richmond; it connotes a certain air of elitism and arrogance...
They have their own moon-like orbits, but they're still in the San Francisco area. It's no different than in any other city, even if they have real downtowns and some decent urbanity in their cores.
CD places such a high priority on urbanity and walkability. In the real world, very few factor that in to making life decisions. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people on here do.
Very true statement. Average people don't give a damn about urbanity or walkabilty. It's not even a passing thought. Those things are only discussed here, or perhaps on a small handful of similar forums/sites. People choose cities because of family, a job, school, cost of living, or weather. There are those few of us that really care about urbanity and walkabilty but we're not average.
Very true statement. Average people don't give a damn about urbanity or walkabilty. It's not even a passing thought. Those things are only discussed here, or perhaps on a small handful of similar forums/sites. People choose cities because of family, a job, school, cost of living, or weather. There are those few of us that really care about urbanity and walkabilty but we're not average.
Urbanity and walkability is huge in cities that are urban and walkable ...it’s why people move to nyc, dc, Boston, Philly, Chicago..you would only think people don’t care about it if you live in a city that’s not walkable or urban
Urbanity and walkability is huge in cities that are urban and walkable ...it’s why people move to nyc, dc, Boston, Philly, Chicago..you would only think people don’t care about it if you live in a city that’s not walkable or urban
But yet I lived in Chicago for years and my family is from there. Most of the people I knew who moved there was for family or work (not weather! Lol). I never met anyone who spoke of walkability as their motive, although it is an appealing aspect of the city. I know a lot of people who enjoy the urbanity of Chicago but I think highlighting it is more unique to CD. It would be fairly rare in the real world from my experience.
In polls, a huge percentage of people say they want walkability. But many put it below other points like square footage.
People who move to places like Boston, Philly or Chicago value walkability which is why the center cities are outperforming their suburbs significantly in Growth. Boston, Chelsea, Everett and Somerville are the fastest growing cities in MA. Pittsburgh is outperforming it’s metro as well. While in the Sunbelt that’s not really true. The Suburbs are growing just as fast if not faster than the center cities.
(1) Hyper expensive elite coastal cities NYC, SF, Boston
(2) Bottom of the barrel cities overrun with crime and divestment St. Louis, Buffalo, Detroit
while overlooking or outright decrying cities in the middle.
If CDers were to build their own city it would probably look a lot like DC - a super expensive gentrified core surrounded by poverty and some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation (with a very nice metro system)
I've seen that a lot on this forum. In the real world most people are in more of the middle of the road cities so they don't have any reason to dig deep to see the good in the bottom of the barrel cities, even if there is a lot of good in them. They typically assume places like Detroit suck and don't give a second thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
Well, the problem is that people base their entire opinion of a city based on their drive through on the Interstate, their one-day business trip, their visit twenty-five years ago, or something someone said. It takes a longer to know a city.
I think this is true, and that's part of the reason why there's such a gap in C-D perception and world perception. I think the average person bases their view of cities on hearsay, stereotypes, and brief experiences. I like to think people on this forum do more research and care about the data more often.
I also disagree with your usage of the phrase "ghetto areas" to describe Vallejo and Richmond; it connotes a certain air of elitism and arrogance...
Yeah, I agree with you there. That was definitely the wrong way to describe those areas. I was writing quickly and trying to draw a distinction between Richmond and Vallejo and the more tony suburbs of Marin and Sonoma counties but what I should have said was grittier and more working class. “Ghetto areas” does come off as elitist and honestly it’s a gross oversimplification that does not accurately describe those areas. My bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
